<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas
Lowenhaupt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce
Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html">http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html</a>
- might be of interest to the list.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it
comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems
in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community
ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps
expected from a mainstream US politician. <br>
<br>
GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed
two very important things with regard to new gtlds<br>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm">(1) "For strings representing generic
terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest
goal" </p>
<br>
(2) "Strings that are linked to regulated
or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent
with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with
the relevant regulatory....bodies
"<br>
<br>
I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very
important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis
how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a
highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest
oriented governance system.<br>
<br>
<br>
These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to
meet public interest requirements concerned with its global
governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of
systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to
address real world public interest issues, despite committees over
committees over independent experts that it may designate on any
issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. <br>
<br>
Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is
likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it
allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent
the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that
it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest
issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN
governance paradigm...<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com"
type="cite">
<div class="moz-forward-container"> <br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Tom Lowenhaupt<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>